Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[AlphaNoodle]

so how's the transfer on this? 2 discs seems like a win win

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by AlphaNoodle

so how's the transfer on this? 2 discs seems like a win win

Oh man...lol. Let's just go with "controversial" to say the least.

[hoejunter]

Finally watched this today and it looked absolutely gorgeous

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pagey123

Oh man...lol. Let's just go with "controversial" to say the least.

No real "controversy" here, just a few loonies who think that Lawrence's UHD is less than perfect, which was met with utter incredulity by others and thus blown beyond all reasonable proportion. Typical Blu-ray.com thread then.

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No real "controversy" here, just a few loonies who think that Lawrence's UHD is less than perfect, which was met with utter incredulity by others and thus blown beyond all reasonable proportion. Typical Blu-ray.com thread then.

Lol, fair points all around, Geoff. I was trying to walk the thin line between "after 4 or 5 pages of Internet hell, is this person REALLY asking or just stirring the pot" and not being a total dick to an actually curious person who didn't read the preceding dumpster fires.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by AlphaNoodle

so how's the transfer on this? 2 discs seems like a win win

The stream to my eyes very noticeably has better and more saturated colors. And maybe a bit more detail. But obviously the compression is not as good as the physical disc. So if that bothers you, definitely the UHD is the way to go. Me personally, I prefer the stream. As for the restoration itself, it’s okay. I liked it much better as a 70mm printout, than the way it looks at home. Looked more natural.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by slimjean

I am all for it! I had someone asking a question and I answered, but my last paragraph was the focus.

While what I said seemed to be more important to some, Pagey 123 wrote up an excellent observation.

I don't agree with the observation that it is not about anything at its core.

If anything I don't think the film takes the easy way out by explaining away a flawed very human character. He obviously had lots of traits that were very heroic (like the desert trek back scene), but then the obvious way that he went through an ordeal after the inevitable slap down showed that there was a PTSD setting in. His demise was pretty tragic in my view.

The movie has so many layers, it really is sad that all this is swept away from what is deemed to be a "soft" transfer.

We are taught to only like harsh digital edges, that the summation of total picture and the incredible detail is deemed inferior. Is that all that different then the flawed logic that the film is not offering more than it is because it isn't given the typical hollywood flairs of a perfect good guy or bad guy in the protagonist?

Reminds me of people that say nothing is going on in a tv show episode because people don't get killed or raped etc.. as if that is the definition of "going on".

On film - I do not necessarily view it as a biopic but a translation of particular events in the history of Arabia through the lens of Lawrence. The experience journey of Lawrence takes a backseat, relatively speaking, to him serving as a catalyst to ignite the process of change in the region through his initiatives.

On transfer - the discussion is not whether it is good or bad but does the latest effort achieve perfection as the film has.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No real "controversy" here, just a few loonies who think that Lawrence's UHD is less than perfect, which was met with utter incredulity by others and thus blown beyond all reasonable proportion. Typical Blu-ray.com thread then.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by zen007

On transfer - the discussion is not whether it is good or bad but does the latest effort achieve perfection as the film has.

A lot closer than the compression artifact polluted stream mess that is for sure.

"Perfection" is unrealistic, but there will always be people lining up to knock down the king of the hill. In this case you can spell the name as Sony.

I would argue that as good as the film is, it was never that lofty for me anyway, I save that for films like Seven Samurai, Tokyo Story and the list goes on.

Beautiful to look at, but deep and important as the other greats, I just don't see it.

2001 will always be my baby if we are going for 70 mm greatness. Sand vs Space, I am going for the edges of our galaxy every single time.

Still we can like steak and cheesecake. They are both delicious for me.

Speaking of Sony, got my notification. Wonderful I am getting a replacement soon. Compare that to some other companies that put out flawed releases and tell you to go fly a kite.

Originally Posted by Pagey123

Lol, fair points all around, Geoff. I was trying to walk the thin line between "after 4 or 5 pages of Internet hell, is this person REALLY asking or just stirring the pot" and not being a total dick to an actually curious person who didn't read the preceding dumpster fires.

Still haven't found any valid answers to disprove this supposed "fine detail" that totally destroys key parts of every frame of the movie. Stirring the pot is not assigning to the group think that must agree no matter the cost.

I pulled up zoomed in examples to support my case. If that is stirring the pot, what were the posts basically saying that the UHD wasn't worth buying? The compression wasn't even talked about to the extent it has been till I pointed it out. Now we get the, well it wasn't that bad, we never said that, sure ok.

Actually it got worse than that. There are quite a few people that feel this is just an upscale!

One can compare the 4K Japanese mastered screen caps and see the obvious, but yet there are some that will swear that this is all just a superbit thing because it isn't artificially sharpened.

This all should lie down, because we can all just agree to disagree and choose whichever version we like.

[Pagey123]

I just meant that I felt it was better to describe it, based on the discussion of the last few pages, as "controversial" rather than picking a side when I have no first-hand knowledge of how the UHD or the streaming UHD version look in motion. I was also unsure, given the last few pages, if the person asking was in fact genuinely curious or if someone created an "alt" (aka, an alternate account, created by an existing member for the purpose of trolling). Sorry if I implied anything else.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Still haven't found any valid answers to disprove this supposed "fine detail" that totally destroys key parts of every frame of the movie. Stirring the pot is not assigning to the group think that must agree no matter the cost.

I pulled up zoomed in examples to support my case. If that is stirring the pot, what were the posts basically saying that the UHD wasn't worth buying? The compression wasn't even talked about to the extent it has been till I pointed it out. Now we get the, well it wasn't that bad, we never said that, sure ok.

Who actually said that the UHD wasn't worth buying? If you mean zen007 then he's a streaming person in general, his stirring of the pot is best avoided and he does it in more threads than just this one. And Noremac is just being Noremac. When you've interacted at length with more people on here than just me then you'll get a feel for all their, ah, idiosyncrasies.

But I mentioned the compression of the UHD - if that's what you're referring to - almost a week before you made your first post on here. If you mean the compression of the stream, it went unsaid because the godawful compression is patently bloody obvious and people were using it mainly as a reference for the very high frequency detail that's been filtered off on the UHD, NOT citing the stream as a holistic example of the best way to watch the movie. But then you know that and we've been over this again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But I mentioned the compression of the UHD - if that's what you're referring to - almost a week before you made your first post on here. If you mean the compression of the stream, it went unsaid because the godawful compression is patently bloody obvious and people were using it mainly as a reference for the very high frequency detail that's been filtered off on the UHD, NOT citing the stream as a holistic example of the best way to watch the movie. But then you know that and we've been over this again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

I was referring to the compression of the stream. I don't think all people see things this way and some will follow like sheep just wanting to know which is best. I don't blame someone for that actually. Though it is nice to see an expressed balance sometimes even if obvious to some people. It wasn't obvious to me.

I agree we have been over this. I have really liked your posts lately. You are right that people have their way of posting. It is a shame that tone can be misunderstood sometimes. I got no beef with most people.

I will try not to beat the dead horse, it just seems to wiggle and I see another zombie.

As for who said it, you have to go back a few pages. If not expressed absolutely the implication was there. Saying something is a 4K upscale is pretty damning.

[kedavis]

I got the extras Blu-ray replacement disc for the missing special features yesterday from FedEx. When cutting off the shrink-wrap, I cut into the disc case as well. They're both clear plastic. I'll put the new disc in the Lawrence case and toss the old disc, as it's redundant.

The new extras disc starts with 4 unskippable piracy warnings, 1 in French.
The main menu has 2 choices: subtitles & extras.
There are 13 subtitle options, including 2 English & 2 Spanish.
The extras option has 3 screens, 3 of which have submenus. The 1st screen has graphical icons and the others are text only.

The most important thing to note is that ALL of the extras on the original Blu-ray extras disc that came with the set are included in the replacement.

New extras:
Deleted balcony scene with intro by Anne V. Coates (It looks and sounds fine to me but Lean wasn't happy so left it off the restoration)
The lure of the desert: Martin Scorsese (interesting)
King Hussein visits set (mildly interesting)
In love with the desert (kind of slow and long)
Lawrence at 50: a classic restored
Archival interviews: Steven Spielberg (1998), William Friedkin (2007), Sidney Pollack (2007)
[The older Spielberg interview is different than his "conversation"]
Vintage trailers: 1962 theatrical, theatrical teasers 1 & 2, 70 mm restoration (1989), TV spots 1 & 2.

[T.H.E. Cat]

I received my Lawrence Of Arabia Special Features replacement disc yesterday via FedEx. This afternoon I finally placed this new special features blu-ray inside of my 4K UHD four-disc keepcase (formally containing Deadpool 2*, which I ended up giving to a coworker). Now all is well here and below you will find the photographic evidence to prove it: the original LOA four-disc blu-ray case is getting along just fine with the newly adapted LOA 4K UHD four-disc keepcase. Needless to say, there was much rejoicing within my domicile.






* A special thank you to Geoff D for the idea of obtaining said Deadpool 2 4K UHD keepcase to properly house the four-disc LOA 4K UHD set.

[moviebuff75]

I am so bummed. My collector's blu ray set plastic cover has cracked.

[Bostonyte]

Pushing 60 and somehow have never seen this. Watched tonight on 4K and close to tears on its beauty and wonderful story! Only downside is now the bar has been set (IMHO) and I might be underwhelmed with future 4K viewing.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by T.H.E. Cat

I received my Lawrence Of Arabia Special Features replacement disc yesterday via FedEx. This afternoon I finally placed this new special features blu-ray inside of my 4K UHD four-disc keepcase (formally containing Deadpool 2*, which I ended up giving to a coworker). Now all is well here and below you will find the photographic evidence to prove it: the original LOA four-disc blu-ray case is getting along just fine with the newly adapted LOA 4K UHD four-disc keepcase. Needless to say, there was much rejoicing within my domicile.




* A special thank you to Geoff D for the idea of obtaining said Deadpool 2 4K UHD keepcase to properly house the four-disc LOA 4K UHD set.

I threw away the oversized, useless LOA box. Kept the book and film frame though.

[chewbabka]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

I threw away the oversized, useless LOA box. Kept the book and film frame though.

Cool story bruh

[AlphaNoodle]

Thanks for the reply guys! So ultimately it's still an upgrade from the BD!

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by T.H.E. Cat

* A special thank you to Geoff D for the idea of obtaining said Deadpool 2 4K UHD keepcase to properly house the four-disc LOA 4K UHD set.

I'll probably just chuck the Blu-rays after my next Casetopia haul. i mean, the extras are on a separate disc, if I remember right.